The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

Loading ...

Loading ...

This story appears in the {{article.article.magazine.pretty_date}} issue of {{article.article.magazine.pubName}}. Subscribe

Image via Wikipedia

Last year about this time, I wrote a Forbes post stating that before Michigan State even played its bowl game it had already lost the BCS sweepstakes. To avoid antitrust lawsuits, the BCS established a rule that “No more than two teams from a conference may be selected [to a BCS game], regardless of whether they are automatic qualifiers or at-large selections, unless two non-champions from the same conference are ranked No. 1 and No. 2 in the final BCS Standings.” Last year, the Big Ten had three teams tied for the conference championship, all with one loss for the entire season. Those teams were Wisconsin, Ohio State and Michigan State. Wisconsin and Ohio State were ranked higher than MSU in the BCS standings. They both deserved to be there – if you ignore tattoo-gate. So MSU was left out of the BCS mix. But MSU was a top 10 BCS team. As I lamented, “they were bowled over by the same regulator that ranks them so highly.” There was at least one conference champion, U Conn for the Big East, which lost three more games than MSU, played a weaker schedule, did not finish in the Top 25 that nonetheless played in a BCS game (Tostitos Fiesta Bowl) with all the resultant financial and recruiting benefits.

The question regarding the Big Ten is which two teams qualify this year?

Your common sense tells you that when a conference has two divisions, and the winners of those divisions play in a conference championship, the winner of the championship game is a shoo–in. That would be Wisconsin. And you would logically say the other BCS team from the conference would be the team that played for the championship since it was the best team from its division. Stated differently, the second-best team is the other team in the championship game. It is no different from the long-established sense that whoever finished second is the runner-up. This year’s runner-up in the Big Ten is Michigan State. And if we consider that Michigan State, affectionately known as Sparty, also beat Wisconsin in October, your common sense would surely tell you Sparty would get the affectionate nod as the second team to play in a BCS bowl game.

Now enter the Michigan Wolverines for BCS consideration. They cannot replace Wisconsin because Wisconsin won the overall conference championship. Under BCS rules, the Big Ten is one of the Big 6 conferences, and its champion is an automatic qualifier (“AQ”) for a BCS game. So that means the other BCS slot within the conference is between Michigan and Michigan State.

I hear you saying, “Well, that is really not that difficult a decision. In head-to-head competition this season, Sparty beat Michigan, end of story.” But just to make sure you are analytically objective, you add the footnote that MSU only lost one game in conference during the season, while U of M lost two. And in case recent history is a factor, you add the fact that Michigan State beat Michigan for four straight years.

Well if Sparty was bowled over last year, this year is worse. It’s like they lost an antitrust or patent suit because there appears to be treble damages. First, Sparty had Wisconsin beat in the championship game for the second time this season until a questionable strategy was employed to try to block the last Badger punt. Worse yet, they convincingly beat arch-rival Michigan (28-14), yet lost to Michigan in BCS standings. So the first-time-back-to-being-decent-in four years-Wolverines, not Sparty, end up playing in a BCS bowl game. That is classic can’t win for losing.

So in reality Michigan benefits from not earning the right to play for the conference championship. By losing more conference games than MSU, Michigan did not have to risk playing Wisconsin, which is clearly a better team by any objective measure. By default, through its non-game, Michigan outplayed MSU for the second BCS slot. The reward system is upside down.

“How can that happen?” you ask. In the BCS Standings the higher the overall average the better. The short answer is that Michigan finished 13th with a BCS average of .4794. Michigan State finished 17th with a BCS average of .3883. But just for fun and anguish, let’s look under the hood for a moment.

Sometimes technology gets in the way of intelligence. The BCS has a technology component for its standings and thus its decisions. The BCS Standings is a combination of two polls (Harris Interactive and USA Today Coaches), plus 6 computer rankings. The point total is determined by averaging the percent totals of the Harris, USA, and computer polls.

The Harris Interactive poll is composed of 115 panelists. That group includes former coaches, players, administrators and current and former media. I wonder how much of their decisions are influenced by former glory of U of M. And guess how Harris picks the 115 panelists? There is a pool of 300 people nominated from the 11 Football Bowl Subdivision conferences and Notre Dame. The actual 115 are randomly drawn by Harris Interactive. Random sounds a little like guess work or luck or something other than head to head competition on the field.

And it is not clear just how to quantify the intangible perceptions of those who cast a vote in those polls. Just who is interacting with whom? Is someone influencing someone else in ways that is akin to political lobbying? Is there a need for BCS finance reform? A New York Times article published results from an investigative report in 2009 asserting that Fiesta Bowl top executives used bowl funds for political purposes which may have violated campaign finance laws. The Fiesta Bowl’s CEO was fired. The Fiesta Bowl is one of those selected by the BCS for its games, so the question of how influence is peddled within the entire system is not far-fetched. I am not a conspiracy theorist that claims U of M grads paid off the pollsters. But I am keeping my eyes open. After all, where there are billions of dollars, there is potential for abuse.